Mar. 9, 2005

One of the biggest nonsecrets in Washington these days is the Central
Intelligence Agency's top-secret program for sending terrorism suspects to
countries where concern for human rights and the rule of law don't pose
obstacles to torturing prisoners. For months, the Bush administration has
refused to comment on these operations, which make the United States the
artner of some of the world's most repressive regimes.

But a senior official talked about it to The Times's Douglas Jehl and David
Johnston, saying he wanted to rebut assertions that the United States was
putting prisoners in the hands of outlaw regimes for the specific purpose of
having someone else torture them. Sadly, his explanation, reported on
Sunday, simply confirmed that the Bush administration has been outsourcing
torture and intends to keep doing it.

For years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the C.I.A. had occasionally
engaged in the practice known in bureaucratese by the creepy euphemism
"extraordinary rendition." But after the attacks in New York and Washington,
President Bush gave the agency broad authority to export prisoners without
getting permission from the White House or the Justice Department. Rendition
has become central to antiterrorism operations at the C.I.A., which also
operates clandestine camps around the world for prisoners it doesn't want
the International Red Cross or the American public to know about.

According to the Times article, the C.I.A. has flown 100 to 150 suspected
terrorists to countries like Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and
Pakistan - each a habitual offender when it comes to torture. It's against
American law and international convention to send prisoners to any nation
where they are likely to be tortured, so the official said no prisoner is
sent to another country without assurances from that government that they
will be treated humanely. He said that C.I.A. officials "check on those
assurances, and we double-check."

Those assurances are worthless, and the Bush administration surely knows it.
In normal times, the governments of these countries have abysmal standards
for human rights and humane treatment, and would have no problem promising
that a prisoner won't be tortured - right before he's tortured. And these
are not normal times. The Bush administration has long since made it clear
that it will tolerate torture, even by men and women in American uniforms.
And why send prisoners to places like Syria and Saudi Arabia, if not for the
brutal treatment Americans are supposed to abhor? The senior official said
it saved manpower and money, compared with keeping them in the United States
or at American-run prisons abroad. The idea that this is a productivity
initiative would be comical if the issue were not so tragically serious.

No rational person would deny the need to hunt down terrorists, to try to
extract lifesaving information from them and to punish them, legally. But
the C.I.A. has sent prisoners to countries where they were tortured for
months and then either disappeared or were released because they knew
nothing. The guilty ones can never be brought to justice - not after they
have been illegally imprisoned and even tortured.

American officials have offered pretzel logic to defend these practices.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said that if the United States sends a
prisoner abroad, then our nation's constitution no longer applies.

This is just the sort of thinking that led to the horrible abuses at prisons
in Iraq, where the Army is now holding more Iraqi prisoners than ever:
nearly 9,000. The military says it's doing a better job of screening these
prisoners than in the days when a vast majority of Iraqi prisoners were, in
fact, innocent of any wrongdoing. But there is still a shortage of
translators to question prisoners, the jails are dangerously overcrowded,
and there's never been a full and honest public accounting of the rules the
American prison guards now follow.

Let's be clear about this: Any prisoner of the United States is protected by
American values. That cannot be changed by sending him to another country
and pretending not to notice that he's being tortured.

Prohibition Kills!

Kathryn Johnston

November 21, 2006—GA

Acting on a tip from a confidential informant, police conduct a no-knock raid on the home of 88 year old Kathryn Johnston.

Johnston, described by neighbors as feeble and afraid to open her door at night, opens fire on officers as they burst into her home. Three of the officers are wounded before Johnston is shot and killed.

Relatives say that Johnston lived alone, and legally owned a gun because she was fearful of intruders. She lived in the home for 17 years. Police claim that they find a small amount of marijuana in Johnston's home, but none of the cocaine, computers, money, or equipment described in the affidavit that was used to obtain a warrant.